Poor Apple analogy. As with apple we see the final product and with ONVO everyone is in the dark. The testing you refer to at Roche was conducted just recently but what was done at Roche over 3 years ago with the other platforms. This was basically step 1 of a 20 step validation process. I'm sorry but this is a looser and the technology is so expensive you might as well use cyno models. You folks don't know what your talking about because you are not in the tox field. II recommend you call a in vitro toxicologist at a large pharm company and better educate yourself and protect your investment dollars.

I'm an actual toxicologist and work developing compounds to ameliorate drug induced liver injury (DILI). now does that sound like a paid spammer to you? We have tested all these advanced models except for ONVO due to the outrageous cost. They have not shown us any data that would compel us to have them test our compounds besides we don't want to ship our proprietary compounds due to the liabilities of doing so. Please understand I'm here to help and an investor in other stocks but not this one. I actually have never shorted a stock in my life..

I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have. I actually know Adrian Roth who did the testing for Roche and can tell you he was not happy with all the spin/ PR that was delivered to the public via ONVO management from his early assessment work. I work on the west coast for a Roche subsidiary... can you figure out who?

I think what you meant to say is inferior "model" not inferior "assays". neither company sells assays they cell in vitro "models" The assays are the "test" used to assess the model. Most pharma company assess for liver toxicity using ATP as the "assay" as per the FDA for new IND submissions. Since you don't seem to have a clue what is asked of these advanced liver models and what can delineate them I suggest you find someone who can give you those answers.

sorry I have to reply. Management team is great and the company has recruited heavy hitters...no doubt about that. I used to work for Greg at Applied bio systems. before we were acquired by life technologies. He's the best of the best. What I'm tring to convey to this board is that from a industry customer prespective we have not seen compelling evidence of superiority of the ONVO model. BTW ONVO does not sell assays they sell a liver model which one runs assays. Promega and life technologies sell assays.

She is a regenerative medicine scientist and not a toxicologist. completely different world. She probably understand liver biology but not necessarily the applications or the business aspect of these labs.

I suggest you take a look at the Hepregen website and see the list of publications which tout the technology and answer the questions ONVO purports to be novel for their model only. Guys this is a joke of a debate, if you only knew. Roche has a charter to evaluate different models and they have. ONVO is just one and the data that came out of the evaluation was incredibly basic. You can see the same data posted from all the advanced liver model providers that have all had similar colloborations. Hepregen for example has BI and Pfizer data sets you can see.

physiologically relevant doses are measured in units called Cmax. look it up, typically IC50's are generated during a dose response experiment, concentrations ranging from low uM to 1 mM. from these you generate an IC50 and compare that number to Cmax (physiologically relevant max dose) and the closer the ratio to "1" the more relevant. All comparative studies have done this to be honest not sure how ONVO could even make this statement. It makes me question this slight, not scientific spin they place on everything. For instance, Astra Zeneca published a poster on just subject recently. A 53 marketed compounds study with known DILI (drug induced liver injury). The non- ONVO model stacked up very well with hepatotoxicants and non-hepatotoxicants at physiological dosses. so this is plainly not true. Please don't quote snippets and miss-report what they mean. This is very unfair for the general public deciding if this investment has merit. It makes me question your motives.

I encourage everyone to perfom some real due diligence and understand what answers the ONVO model delivers that some of these more advanced 3D models don't answer. Sensitivity and specificity are the keys to understanding how a "model" correlates to in vivo (human or animal) data. If the model can predict toxicity (within some certainty) in humans or animals than it's done it's job. Hepregen has done a 40 compound screen of known hepatoxicants and recapitulated in vivo data very well. I believe this was Pfizer data. InSphero has astra zenca and Sanofi and GSK with similar data sets.

I wouldn't recommend anyone take anyone's word for it...especially on this msg board. What I would recommend is you take a look at the data which is out there and conduct your own DD. I'd begin with regenemed for one. These websites have plenty of information. My guess is ONVO will likely purchase one of these smaller private companies to fill the gap between their future technology prospects and what the industry can use today.

Sorry but you are so wrong with your perception of what restrictions are at my place of employment. We have cell phones, iPads and even laptops. ....all with internet access. Some of us even have a sense of humor, mine happens to surround vintage 80's movies...thus Bluestar. I thought it was rather suiting and funny. Love gecko. never saw the remake though. Biotech lab personnel aren't restricted from internet access... come on....

I'm here because I am a scientist and believe this company isn't what it's hyped up to be. I work with these models everyday. They might have something that makes sense for late stage preclinical work but this is low throughput and would only displace a few in vivo (animal studies).

ONVO is keeping any characterization work very secret. So you are correct. But why wouldn't they release the details of how they can de-risk the drug development process better than the models which already are on the market and have 3 years of data behind them?

Trending Tickers

i

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.

Yahoo! Finance Worldwide

Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE, and NYSEAmex when available. See also delay times for other exchanges. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.